The Greek Geek Vs. The Turkish Terror, Bucks @ Sixers 3/29 7:00pm EST

[Murray_17]

Watch the TNT crew analyze games and just about every night they'll specify mental/emotional variables as the difference-makers between teams. Take it from them, not me.

No one said mentality or emotional aspects of the game don't matter.

Using it as the only reason why you cannot win in a team sport is silly.

Was Kobe less of a driven guy because Horry had to bail him several times? no.

The TNT crew analysis is often lacking too, they don't even watch the games they don't cover.

[Jailblazers7]

I will say that Giannis has always had a superpower of managing his own ego compared to basically everyone else. He’s been consistently tinkering with his jumper and pushing himself outside his comfort zone live on national TV. Sometimes it leads to embarrassing moments but he’s willing to accept that as the cost of growth. It’s honestly an amazing quality and something I really admire about him. Now all that work has paid dividends and he’s unstoppable.

Anyway, my criticism of Embiid/Harden in the clutch is mostly that they’ve failed in the same way repeatedly. In any one game, we can say they got a decent shot but just happened to miss. But over their careers, they get the same shots and often miss them in high leverage situations. I’d feel a lot better if I saw some sort of growth or experimentation in those situations even if the result isn’t immediately better.

[Ferry Avenue]

And of course after becoming a champion you can just see the increased confidence and swagger that Giannis carries himself with. He's not fundamentally a good shooter, but he takes and makes dirk fades and 3's in transition and tough midranges because he genuinely believes he's taking a shot he can and should make.

You develop that kind of confidence and swagger and then become a champion, not the other way around.

Yea, and my point is that it wasn't always there. And Giannis had a lot of help along the way in the form of Coach Bud and Khris Middleton who helped him combine to take that first step and get to an ECF, and then the final push was them taking that leap and the addition of Jrue Holiday.

Up until James Harden arrived I would say Embiid had zero current long term foundational pieces on this roster that could be relied upon long term (beside maybe the unknown potential of Tyrese Maxey). Tobias Harris and Doc Rivers have been detriments to the long term success of this franchise and they're seen more of as contracts that needs to be excavated for this team to improve whereas Giannis+Middleton was a clear foundation.

Even though this season has been rocky, we've still seen the top end offensive potential of Harden/Embiid and it's frightening. You need to create your own momentum and there's no better time than the playoffs to find your level.

If Jo and Harden make a run to the ECF (or beyond) it would be the start of their own momentum, you'd see them come back next season (hopefully with a more optimized roster) with much higher confidence levels and self belief that they can do this thing together.

There is certainly the potential for Embiid to develop with regard to what we're talking about and ultimately possess sufficient ability to win a championship with it. What I fear however is that he simply plays the wrong position and therefore has a ceiling on how he can impact games in that way, and will always need another player to spearhead the team in that regard. And if that's going to be Harden, I seriously question whether he has enough "dog" in him to pull that off.

So in the end you could be talking about two players here whose ceilings on what they can be in that regard are too low to make them competitive against teams with the likes of Durant/Irving, Giannis/Middleton, Paul/Booker, Morant, etc.

[Ferry Avenue]

Watch the TNT crew analyze games and just about every night they'll specify mental/emotional variables as the difference-makers between teams. Take it from them, not me.

No one said mentality or emotional aspects of the game don't matter.

Using it as the only reason why you cannot win in a team sport is silly.

Was Kobe less of a driven guy because Horry had to bail him several times? no.

The TNT crew analysis is often lacking too, they don't even watch the games they don't cover.

That's not what I'm doing. What I'm saying is that it distinguishes the best teams in the league from each other.

The difference in a seven-game playoff series between the 2021-2022 Bucks and Sixers for example isn't physical talent -- it's the dog in Giannis and Middleton and how that overpowers the dog in Embiid and Harden.

Now certainly if you're comparing the Bucks to the Houston Rockets for example, then other variables are far more explanatory.

[Murray_17]

That's not what I'm doing. What I'm saying is that it distinguishes the best teams in the league from each other.

The difference in a seven-game playoff series between the 2021-2022 Bucks and Sixers for example isn't physical talent -- it's the dog in Giannis and Middleton and how that overpowers the dog in Embiid and Harden.

Now certainly if you're comparing the Bucks to the Houston Rockets for example, then other variables are far more explanatory.

And i'm saying to you that if your distinction between two great teams is who has more of an "alpha" mentality between some player, the only thing i can say is lol.

Thinking like that disregard so many stuff like call plays, schemes, missmatches on the court, line ups, etc.

If doc could have created a missmatch or a switch on one of those plays that gave harden or embiid an open shot or a lay up, they're dogs all of a sudden?

Like, sorry, but this kind of take is Stephen A/Skip Bayless level.

Drive can lead you to excelence, mainly thru work and obssesive behaviour, using it however as THE factor to explain why great team A is better than Great team B is madness

[stormi]

You develop that kind of confidence and swagger and then become a champion, not the other way around.

Yea, and my point is that it wasn't always there. And Giannis had a lot of help along the way in the form of Coach Bud and Khris Middleton who helped him combine to take that first step and get to an ECF, and then the final push was them taking that leap and the addition of Jrue Holiday.

Up until James Harden arrived I would say Embiid had zero current long term foundational pieces on this roster that could be relied upon long term (beside maybe the unknown potential of Tyrese Maxey). Tobias Harris and Doc Rivers have been detriments to the long term success of this franchise and they're seen more of as contracts that needs to be excavated for this team to improve whereas Giannis+Middleton was a clear foundation.

Even though this season has been rocky, we've still seen the top end offensive potential of Harden/Embiid and it's frightening. You need to create your own momentum and there's no better time than the playoffs to find your level.

If Jo and Harden make a run to the ECF (or beyond) it would be the start of their own momentum, you'd see them come back next season (hopefully with a more optimized roster) with much higher confidence levels and self belief that they can do this thing together.

There is certainly the potential for Embiid to develop with regard to what we're talking about and ultimately possess sufficient ability to win a championship with it. What I fear however is that he simply plays the wrong position and therefore has a ceiling on how he can impact games in that way, and will always need another player to spearhead the team in that regard. And if that's going to be Harden, I seriously question whether he has enough "dog" in him to pull that off.

So in the end you could be talking about two players here whose ceilings on what they can be in that regard are too low to make them competitive against teams with the likes of Durant/Irving, Giannis/Middleton, Paul/Booker, Morant, etc.

That's a silly argument considering the "dog" of nearly everyone on your list has been questioned in depth. Everyone is a loser until they win, and even then Durant and CP3 have been the leader of multiple disastrous choke jobs. Where was Kevin Durant's "dog" when he blew a 3-1 lead shooting tour date numbers from the field? Chris Paul blew a 2-0 lead in the finals just last year.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

The fact that someone like Chris Paul can go from being revered to as the Point God and then Choke God on every given day, and then trying to quantify these outcomes as "dog" level is not only an incredibly primitive way of viewing these high variance events, but it's just misinformation.

Kyrie is Mr. Dog, but what did he do in Boston when he got the chance he begged for to lead his own team?

Do "dog" levels rise and fall depending on the context?

I think instead of trying to arbitrarily place value on loosely defined intangibles, it's more productive to view each playoffs as independent events with unique circumstances surrounding them.

Dirk is my fav comparable to Embiid. Duncan and Garnett had rings by 2011, and while Dirk was a scoring machine and the leader of many dominant teams that won a lot of regular season games, he gained the rep of being a regular season merchant. Dirk choked at the FT line in the '06 finals in game 3, eventually lost the series and then made history in 2007 as a 1 seed bowing out to an 8 seed.

All it took was one incredible run in 2011 and those labels erased. It's the same story for Joel Embiid.

[Ferry Avenue]

That's not what I'm doing. What I'm saying is that it distinguishes the best teams in the league from each other.

The difference in a seven-game playoff series between the 2021-2022 Bucks and Sixers for example isn't physical talent -- it's the dog in Giannis and Middleton and how that overpowers the dog in Embiid and Harden.

Now certainly if you're comparing the Bucks to the Houston Rockets for example, then other variables are far more explanatory.

And i'm saying to you that if your distinction between two great teams is who has more of an "alpha" mentality between some player, the only thing i can say is lol.

Thinking like that disregard so many stuff like call plays, schemes, missmatches on the court, line ups, etc.

If doc could have created a missmatch or a switch on one of those plays that gave harden or embiid an open shot or a lay up, they're dogs all of a sudden?

Like, sorry, but this kind of take is Stephen A/Skip Bayless level.

Drive can lead you to excelence, mainly thru work and obssesive behaviour, using it however as THE factor to explain why great team A is better than Great team B is madness

Well then I'd suggest you tune in to TNT and watch some of the best former players in the league do it. Those guys know what wins games at that level. They experienced it firsthand for many years.

[Murray_17]

Well then I'd suggest you tune in to TNT and watch some of the best former players in the league do it. Those guys know what wins games at that level. They experienced it firsthand for many years.

Those same guys say they don't understand why teams don't post up more in the modern NBA.

I don't dismiss their experiences but using them as the definitive sacred opinion and the wining card on an argument when there are like 100 other experts with less reductive opinions is kind of funny

[Ferry Avenue]

Yea, and my point is that it wasn't always there. And Giannis had a lot of help along the way in the form of Coach Bud and Khris Middleton who helped him combine to take that first step and get to an ECF, and then the final push was them taking that leap and the addition of Jrue Holiday.

Up until James Harden arrived I would say Embiid had zero current long term foundational pieces on this roster that could be relied upon long term (beside maybe the unknown potential of Tyrese Maxey). Tobias Harris and Doc Rivers have been detriments to the long term success of this franchise and they're seen more of as contracts that needs to be excavated for this team to improve whereas Giannis+Middleton was a clear foundation.

Even though this season has been rocky, we've still seen the top end offensive potential of Harden/Embiid and it's frightening. You need to create your own momentum and there's no better time than the playoffs to find your level.

If Jo and Harden make a run to the ECF (or beyond) it would be the start of their own momentum, you'd see them come back next season (hopefully with a more optimized roster) with much higher confidence levels and self belief that they can do this thing together.

There is certainly the potential for Embiid to develop with regard to what we're talking about and ultimately possess sufficient ability to win a championship with it. What I fear however is that he simply plays the wrong position and therefore has a ceiling on how he can impact games in that way, and will always need another player to spearhead the team in that regard. And if that's going to be Harden, I seriously question whether he has enough "dog" in him to pull that off.

So in the end you could be talking about two players here whose ceilings on what they can be in that regard are too low to make them competitive against teams with the likes of Durant/Irving, Giannis/Middleton, Paul/Booker, Morant, etc.

That's a silly argument considering the "dog" of nearly everyone on your list has been questioned in depth. Everyone is a loser until they win, and even then Durant and CP3 have been the leader of multiple disastrous choke jobs. Where was Kevin Durant's "dog" when he blew a 3-1 lead shooting tour date numbers from the field? Chris Paul blew a 2-0 lead in the finals just last year.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

The fact that someone like Chris Paul can go from being revered to as the Point God and then Choke God on every given day, and then trying to quantify these outcomes as "dog" level is not only an incredibly primitive way of viewing these high variance events, but it's just misinformation.

Kyrie is Mr. Dog, but what did he do in Boston when he got the chance he begged for to lead his own team?

Do "dog" levels rise and fall depending on the context?

I think instead of trying to arbitrarily place value on loosely defined intangibles, it's more productive to view each playoffs as independent events with unique circumstances surrounding them.

Dirk is my fav comparable to Embiid. Duncan and Garnett had rings by 2011, and while Dirk was a scoring machine and the leader of many dominant teams that won a lot of regular season games, he gained the rep of being a regular season merchant. Dirk choked at the FT line in the '06 finals in game 3, eventually lost the series and then made history in 2007 as a 1 seed bowing out to an 8 seed.

All it took was one incredible run in 2011 and those labels erased. It's the same story for Joel Embiid.

Things certainly vary, but they can vary from different norms.

Take this list of numbers: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10

Compare it to this one: 10, 12, 14, 16, 18

Same degree of variation, but around a different norm.

Until Embiid/Harden demonstrate significant change in the direction of players who've been there and done that, they should rightly be viewed as varying around a lower and less competitive norm.

[stormi]

There is certainly the potential for Embiid to develop with regard to what we're talking about and ultimately possess sufficient ability to win a championship with it. What I fear however is that he simply plays the wrong position and therefore has a ceiling on how he can impact games in that way, and will always need another player to spearhead the team in that regard. And if that's going to be Harden, I seriously question whether he has enough "dog" in him to pull that off.

So in the end you could be talking about two players here whose ceilings on what they can be in that regard are too low to make them competitive against teams with the likes of Durant/Irving, Giannis/Middleton, Paul/Booker, Morant, etc.

That's a silly argument considering the "dog" of nearly everyone on your list has been questioned in depth. Everyone is a loser until they win, and even then Durant and CP3 have been the leader of multiple disastrous choke jobs. Where was Kevin Durant's "dog" when he blew a 3-1 lead shooting tour date numbers from the field? Chris Paul blew a 2-0 lead in the finals just last year.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

The fact that someone like Chris Paul can go from being revered to as the Point God and then Choke God on every given day, and then trying to quantify these outcomes as "dog" level is not only an incredibly primitive way of viewing these high variance events, but it's just misinformation.

Kyrie is Mr. Dog, but what did he do in Boston when he got the chance he begged for to lead his own team?

Do "dog" levels rise and fall depending on the context?

I think instead of trying to arbitrarily place value on loosely defined intangibles, it's more productive to view each playoffs as independent events with unique circumstances surrounding them.

Dirk is my fav comparable to Embiid. Duncan and Garnett had rings by 2011, and while Dirk was a scoring machine and the leader of many dominant teams that won a lot of regular season games, he gained the rep of being a regular season merchant. Dirk choked at the FT line in the '06 finals in game 3, eventually lost the series and then made history in 2007 as a 1 seed bowing out to an 8 seed.

All it took was one incredible run in 2011 and those labels erased. It's the same story for Joel Embiid.

Things certainly vary, but they can vary from different norms.

Take this list of numbers: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10

Compare it to this one: 10, 12, 14, 16, 18

Same degree of variation, but around a different norm.

Until Embiid/Harden demonstrate significant change in the direction of players who've been there and done that, they should rightly be viewed as varying around a lower and less competitive norm.

You seem to care about how they're viewed a lot more than I do. I don't think it's impossible to win with a core duo of Embiid and Harden as long as they have competent defenders and coaching around them, and they step up and make timely plays.

If you don't think they can win a championship together than you need to be having an entirely different conversation. I don't even know what side of the fence you're on.

[Murray_17]

Things certainly vary, but they can vary from different norms.

Take this list of numbers: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10

Compare it to this one: 10, 12, 14, 16, 18

Same degree of variation, but around a different norm.

Until Embiid/Harden demonstrate significant change in the direction of players who've been there and done that, they should rightly be viewed as varying around a lower and less competitive norm.

This is a perfect example to show why you're wrong tho

Your example asume every number on those sequences stay constant and only your "dog" factor can change the degree of variation, which is hilariously a bad example and explain perfectly the problem with your argument

[Ferry Avenue]

That's a silly argument considering the "dog" of nearly everyone on your list has been questioned in depth. Everyone is a loser until they win, and even then Durant and CP3 have been the leader of multiple disastrous choke jobs. Where was Kevin Durant's "dog" when he blew a 3-1 lead shooting tour date numbers from the field? Chris Paul blew a 2-0 lead in the finals just last year.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

The fact that someone like Chris Paul can go from being revered to as the Point God and then Choke God on every given day, and then trying to quantify these outcomes as "dog" level is not only an incredibly primitive way of viewing these high variance events, but it's just misinformation.

Kyrie is Mr. Dog, but what did he do in Boston when he got the chance he begged for to lead his own team?

Do "dog" levels rise and fall depending on the context?

I think instead of trying to arbitrarily place value on loosely defined intangibles, it's more productive to view each playoffs as independent events with unique circumstances surrounding them.

Dirk is my fav comparable to Embiid. Duncan and Garnett had rings by 2011, and while Dirk was a scoring machine and the leader of many dominant teams that won a lot of regular season games, he gained the rep of being a regular season merchant. Dirk choked at the FT line in the '06 finals in game 3, eventually lost the series and then made history in 2007 as a 1 seed bowing out to an 8 seed.

All it took was one incredible run in 2011 and those labels erased. It's the same story for Joel Embiid.

Things certainly vary, but they can vary from different norms.

Take this list of numbers: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10

Compare it to this one: 10, 12, 14, 16, 18

Same degree of variation, but around a different norm.

Until Embiid/Harden demonstrate significant change in the direction of players who've been there and done that, they should rightly be viewed as varying around a lower and less competitive norm.

You seem to care about how they're viewed a lot more than I do. I don't think it's impossible to win with a core duo of Embiid and Harden as long as they have competent defenders and coaching around them, and they step up and make timely plays.

If you don't think they can win a championship together than you need to be having an entirely different conversation. I don't even know what side of the fence you're on.

The underscored part above is exactly what we're talking about. Call that "the Michael Jordan variable," as again he was the epitome of it in my opinion. There is little if any evidence to suggest Embiid/Harden possess that to the degree necessary to beat the likes of Durant/Irving, Giannis/Middleton, Paul/Booker, etc., in a seven-game series, where again it's my opinion that that variable is the prime mover in the outcome between teams playing at that level.

[Mik317]

its not about the 11th and 12th man tho.

as of right now most nights we have 4 players playing well....Basketball is a sport in which you have 5 guys playing at once.

Harden and Biid can be better...not doubting that. Biid for all of his flaws, leads the league in clutch points btw...and I have no doubt he will figure out somethings...as he has in the past. But to use this game as your proving ground for your dog mentality take doesn't work for me.... neither guy was the reason we lost. Yes both guys could stand to be less mopey when things don't go their way....and yeah having both be insane grinders like Jordan would be awesome...but that is not a requisite to winning IMO. Again Westbrook is the hardest playing guy in the world. He is dog mentality personified IMO. Not a winning player. Tim Duncan had the emotions of a block of wood....5 time champion. Its a nice attribute to have (and honestly I think Biid does have it...especially this year. Prior years poor starts would often continue. He started 1-8 and then got his flow back to EXTEND the lead. Harden idk lol) but not the end all be all IMO.

[stormi]

Things certainly vary, but they can vary from different norms.

Take this list of numbers: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10

Compare it to this one: 10, 12, 14, 16, 18

Same degree of variation, but around a different norm.

Until Embiid/Harden demonstrate significant change in the direction of players who've been there and done that, they should rightly be viewed as varying around a lower and less competitive norm.

You seem to care about how they're viewed a lot more than I do. I don't think it's impossible to win with a core duo of Embiid and Harden as long as they have competent defenders and coaching around them, and they step up and make timely plays.

If you don't think they can win a championship together than you need to be having an entirely different conversation. I don't even know what side of the fence you're on.

The underscored part above is exactly what we're talking about. Call that "the Michael Jordan variable," as again he was the epitome of it in my opinion. There is little if any evidence to suggest Embiid/Harden possess that to the degree necessary to beat the likes of Durant/Irving, Giannis/Middleton, Paul/Booker, etc., in a seven-game series, where again it's my opinion that that variable is the prime mover in the outcome between teams playing at that level.

So why don't the players that have the "Michael Jordan variable" win every season? Or do some players have more Michael Jordan variable in their bloodstream than others.

How has Chris Paul overcame being the first player in NBA history to blow four 2-0 leads and still maintain his mythical Michael Jordan variable?

[Mik317]

I also like how KD and Kyrie are these playoff killers...when neither have won without Curry or Bron. Also CP3 legit JUST choked in the finals ffs.

Its easy to call someone a dog winner when you move goalposts I guess.

People win because they are good and have good teams. This team as currently constructed has flaws that can't be overcome.

[stormi]

I also like how KD and Kyrie are these playoff killers...when neither have won without Curry or Bron. Also CP3 legit JUST choked in the finals ffs.

Its easy to call someone a dog winner when you move goalposts I guess.

People win because they are good and have good teams. This team as currently constructed has flaws that can't be overcome.

Apparently Khris Middleton and Devin Booker have the Michael Jordan variant that James Harden doesn't so it clearly means they would have torn down the Prime Warriors.

Oh and Kevin Durant blew a 3-1 lead to that same team but he's still contagious with the Michael Jordan variant.

[Ferry Avenue]

Things certainly vary, but they can vary from different norms.

Take this list of numbers: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10

Compare it to this one: 10, 12, 14, 16, 18

Same degree of variation, but around a different norm.

Until Embiid/Harden demonstrate significant change in the direction of players who've been there and done that, they should rightly be viewed as varying around a lower and less competitive norm.

This is a perfect example to show why you're wrong tho

Your example asume every number on those sequences stay constant and only your "dog" factor can change the degree of variation, which is hilariously a bad example and explain perfectly the problem with your argument

The point is that a player like Chris Paul can certainly demonstrate downward variation from "dog" level, but if his norm on a hypothetical "dog" scale that ranges from 0 to 100 is 90 (around which he varies) and James Harden's norm on the same scale is 60 (around which he varies as well), Paul is obviously far more a dog than Harden despite the inevitable downward variation in Paul's performance on occasion in that regard.

In other words, you can't use single instances of failure to determine players aren't "dogs" when there is inevitable downward variation in performance for every player. The question is, what is his norm?

Peyton Manning for example had games in the NFL that were just as bad as those by Jamarcus Russell for example, but both players obviously varied around a far different norm.

[stormi]

This is the worst basketball discussion I've ever witnessed on these boards

[Murray_17]

The point is that a player like Chris Paul can certainly demonstrate downward variation from "dog" level, but if his norm on a hypothetical "dog" scale that ranges from 0 to 100 is 90 (around which he varies) and James Harden's norm on the same scale is 60 (around which he varies as well), Paul is obviously far more a dog than Harden despite the inevitable downward variation in Paul's performance on occasion in that regard.

In other words, you can't use single instances of failure to determine players aren't "dogs" when there is inevitable downward variation in performance for every player. The question is, what is his norm?

Peyton Manning for example had games in the NFL that were just as bad as those by Jamarcus Russell for example, but both players obviously varied around a far different norm.

This is totally different from your previous point.

Hilariously, if you apply this same reasoning to teams instead of single players you would understand the problem with your opinion

[Murray_17]

This is the worst basketball discussion I've ever witnessed on these boards

Still better than the Ben Simmons stan/hater accounts or the "let me meltdown about embiid" guy